Bombay High Court
BHALCHANDRA VITHAL DOLASversusSATU SUDAM DOLAS AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The trial court's view that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to adduce the unpleaded document at an advanced stage is justified.
Summary
The petitioner, Bhalchandra Vithal Dolas, challenged an order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vadgaon Maval that rejected his application to produce a Memorandum of Understanding dated 23 September 2020, which he claimed showed Defendant No.5’s admission of his right in the suit property. The trial court held that the suit was at an advanced stage, the plaintiff had closed his evidence and the defendants’ evidence was nearing completion, and there were no pleadings concerning the document, so the plaintiff could not be permitted to adduce it. The High Court affirmed that, in the absence of pleadings, evidence cannot be introduced at such a stage of the trial. The Court observed that the petitioner may contest the order in a future appeal under Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if a decree is passed against him. Accordingly, the petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether a party may be permitted to adduce a document not pleaded when the trial is at an advanced stage
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 105
Subjects
- evidence
- pleadings
- civil procedure
- section 105
- CPC
- trial stage
- memorandum of understanding
Judgment
12-WP-10170-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10170 OF 2026
Bhalchandra Vithal Dolas ..Petitioner
Versus
Satu Sudam Dolas and Ors …Respondents
Mr. Namit Pansare, for the Petitioner.
ARUN CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
DATE : 29th AUGUST 2026
Digitally signed by
ARUN RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.09.02
10:16:06 +0530
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Namit Pansare, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 4 th February
2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vadgaon
Maval, whereby an Application preferred by the Petitioner-Plaintiff for
producing a document purported to be a Memorandum of
Understanding executed on 23rd September 2020, to show that
Defendant No.5 has admitted the right of the Plaintiff in the suit
property, came to be rejected.
3. The learned Civil Judge was of the view that the trial in the suit
had reached an advanced stage, in as much as the Plaintiff had closed
his evidence and the evidence of the Defendants was on the verge of
ARS 1/2
12-WP-10170-2026.DOC
completion and, since there were no pleadings in regard to the said
document, the Plaintiff cannot be permitted to adduce evidence in
respect of the said fact.
4. In the circumstances of the case, the view of the Trial Court that
sans pleadings the Plaintiff can not be permitted to adduce evidence
appears justified. Hence, there is no propriety in entertaining this
petition.
5. Nonetheless in the event a decree is passed against the Petitioner-
Plaintiff and an appeal is preferred there-against, the Petitioner shall be
at liberty to agitate the legality and correctness of the impugned order
under the provisions of Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908.
6. Subject to the aforesaid clarification, the Petition stands disposed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
ARS 2/2
Checking your session…